Matylda wrote:Well so now we have to remove all women from buddhist centers... there are plenty of teachers on YT speaking to the mixed audience very often mostly women who smile, and make jokes and so on, both Western and Asian teachers... what to do with that???

My point is that it's not a Christian, not a Hinayana, nor a modern idea to warn teachers about the dangers of having any kind of affair with women. It is also not acceptable to call such affairs a Dharma teaching, according to the Lotus Sutra.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Matylda, some of your opinions on the infallibility of a Roshi, and some other opinions, do not match what I have heard from some Japanese Soto Roshis.

Do the opinions you are stating represent mosly your own personal opinion? The opinion of all or most Soto Zen Roshi in Japan? Only some or a minority of Roshi? If so, would you tell us which lineage you may be closest to in these opinions, for example, Harade-Yastani lineage?

T

Well leave lineage behind... once you receive proper teachings on jukai then you should know... I knew roshis from Daiun Sogaku Roshi side... some of them. And others not related to this lineage but to other.

Actually I would like to turn the tables, and refer to the topic, and the topic is not actually zen masters but disturbing element of Sex Taboo's & applying Christianized thinking in Western Zen... since I was asked sometimes to translate for Westreners, i remember on situation.. a Japanese teacher was a hermit who spend almost 40 years in retreats.. he had excellent and famous masters. Only few foreigners had chance to meet him.. remember just one who was very stressed .. his problem was his American teacher who had some sex affairs with women... he had before Jukai with this teacher but while talking to him i understood that he had very vague idea what it really means... then he asked the hermit roshi about this misbehavior of American teacher and was at once stopped.. and warned not to say any critics...

I can see that zen is very kind of social event in America or Europe... practice is kept pretty much in open and people talk about it a lot. There are also exteremly many misconceptions concerning zen, like being a hinayana, or any other distorted opinion. Then anything which goes in this circles will cause a lot of waves of negative emotions, and many people will not fail but fall under the burden of negativity..

Moreover there are so many moralists getting angry at teachers, whether they are right or wrong does really not matter, that even those unrelated to particular teacher with their anger will fall too... don't you think so?

Matylda wrote:Well so now we have to remove all women from buddhist centers... there are plenty of teachers on YT speaking to the mixed audience very often mostly women who smile, and make jokes and so on, both Western and Asian teachers... what to do with that???

My point is that it's not a Christian, not a Hinayana, nor a modern idea to warn teachers about the dangers of having any kind of affair with women. It is also not acceptable to call such affairs a Dharma teaching, according to the Lotus Sutra.

yes according to Lotus sutra yes... but it is not final exposition in zen... moreover I hope you know how the bodhisattva is viewed in zen. I cannot quote but one can find in Sogenji writings as far as I know...

Ānanda, these (retributions) come from the karmic acts of living beings who create ten karmic causes by their vicious habits and so suffer from six kinds of retribution.

The Habit of Sexual Desire

Ānanda, what are these ten causes? Lust grows into a habit because of sexual intercourse in which two people caress each other thereby producing heat that therefore stimulates desire. This is like the heat caused by rubbing the hands together. The two habits from karma and lust stimulate each other and cause visions of hot iron beds on hot iron supports (1). Hence all Buddhas regard sexual intercourse as a burning fire of desire and all Bodhisattvas avoid carnality as if it were a fiery pit.------1. 'The bed stands for sexual desire and its supports for the partner on whom the sinner depends to stimulate his sexual appetite'

Śūraṅgama Sutra, trs Charles Luk, 1966, p179.

Other of the 'ten causes' include arrogance, anger, decietfulness, lying, resentment, and so on. But passages of this type condemning fornication are found in various texts. The kinds of 'retribution' which are said to occur after death include consignment to various hells, where 'he will experience both light which reveals all sorts of evil things everywhere which give rise to boundless dread, and silent darkness which hides everything and causes infinite fear'. (These descriptions occupy 4 pages of text.)

Sometimes spirituality is a liberation, and sometimes it's an alibi ~ David Brazier

Matylda wrote:yes according to Lotus sutra yes... but it is not final exposition in zen... moreover I hope you know how the bodhisattva is viewed in zen. I cannot quote but one can find in Sogenji writings as far as I know...

"Thus, [pure] conduct and observance [of precepts] is Dharma that is not to be neglected even for an instant."(Dogen: SBGZ: Gyoji; vol. 2, ch. 30; p. 165. tr. Nishijima & Cross)

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

tobes wrote:If one ought not make moral judgements - or any kind of conceptual demarcations - then on what basis can one deny 'Christianized thinking' as bad and promote liberal attitudes towards sexuality as good?

There is an implicit claim for universality here - but in fact it is deeply, deeply normative.

Anyway, I freely admit that I am quite weak on understanding the Sino-Japanese traditions, so perhaps it's best if I bow out here.

"Prajna" instead of wisdom,

"ought" instead of should,

"demarcations" instead of lines or boundaries,

"Universality" instead of all-encompasing

"deeply normative" instead of perfectly normal or standard...

Tobes, I appreciate that you enjoy the use of a large vocabulary,

but your use of exotic words does not make you seem more knowledgeable or experienced about the subject matter.

On the contrary, it demonstrates an attempt to hide an insecurity behind a veil of fancy words.

To answer your question,

The first part, "If one ought not make moral judgements"...

Buddhism is not about judgement. One can see things as they actually are, without making a judgement upon them.

This is actually possible to do, though it might seem very hard at first, it is actually a more accurate way of looking at things.

The second part: "or any kind of conceptual demarcations"...

This second part is not dependent upon the first. You can make/draw/identify distinctions between things without judging them. As I said in regard to the first, this is actually possible.

The third part: "then on what basis can one deny 'Christianized thinking' as bad and promote liberal attitudes towards sexuality as good?"...

The answer is one cannot. Which is why in my case that's what I am not doing.

I am not promoting "Christianized thinking" as bad, Tobes, merely pointing out the obvious, that "Christianized thinking" is not based out of Buddhist teachings, and therefor deserves to be examined under the eye of critical thinking as to whether it "ought" (see I can do it too) to be applied automatically, without thought, or whether perhaps such ways of looking at things should be re-examined, and updated, with a more Buddhist way of looking at things.

On the other end, however, I cannot claim to be either promoting, nor being averse to, "liberal attitudes towards sexuality as good", as the use of "liberal" is extremely vague, the definition of which depends entirely upon what one's definition of "conservative attitudes" towards sexuality are, and upon what one considers "normal" sexually, and upon how one defines "normal".

In Gassho,

Sara H.

So in psychologising me as 'using big words in the attempt to hide an insecurity', would this be an example of seeing things as they are without making judgements?

I don't mean to be contrary here, but I think it demonstrates what I'm trying to say: there are very strong judgements going on here, which get expressed as a 'non-judgemental ethos' or a freedom from the act of making judgements.

Buddhism cannot function without the act of making deep judgements: that things are conditioned, that conditioned things generate duhkah, that one can act to be free from conditioned things and duhkah, that such actions must be wholesome....

How do you know to practice Zen and not Christianity? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Surely it did not just spontaneously happen.

You had to discern what is true (for you), what seems to be in accord with reality, what is fruitful and what is not fruitful.

I don't know what is to be gained by pretending that judgement does not occur.

Matylda wrote:yes according to Lotus sutra yes... but it is not final exposition in zen... moreover I hope you know how the bodhisattva is viewed in zen. I cannot quote but one can find in Sogenji writings as far as I know...

"Thus, [pure] conduct and observance [of precepts] is Dharma that is not to be neglected even for an instant."(Dogen: SBGZ: Gyoji; vol. 2, ch. 30; p. 165. tr. Nishijima & Cross)

So does it contradict my statement? Did I ever say it is ok, as far as baizhang concerning community of monastics under the training??? I just talked about an enlightened being, a buddha who appears in disguise of a zen master, and can take one in one lifetime over to complete liberation... I did no quote about the view of bodhisattva on the ultimate zen level, since it is forbidden on this forum as greg informed me... so I am sorry we cannot get to the point.

jeeprs wrote:"On the Ten Causes and Six Effects in the Realm of Hells"

Ānanda, these (retributions) come from the karmic acts of living beings who create ten karmic causes by their vicious habits and so suffer from six kinds of retribution.

The Habit of Sexual Desire

Ānanda, what are these ten causes? Lust grows into a habit because of sexual intercourse in which two people caress each other thereby producing heat that therefore stimulates desire. This is like the heat caused by rubbing the hands together. The two habits from karma and lust stimulate each other and cause visions of hot iron beds on hot iron supports (1). Hence all Buddhas regard sexual intercourse as a burning fire of desire and all Bodhisattvas avoid carnality as if it were a fiery pit.------1. 'The bed stands for sexual desire and its supports for the partner on whom the sinner depends to stimulate his sexual appetite'

Śūraṅgama Sutra, trs Charles Luk, 1966, p179.

Other of the 'ten causes' include arrogance, anger, decietfulness, lying, resentment, and so on. But passages of this type condemning fornication are found in various texts. The kinds of 'retribution' which are said to occur after death include consignment to various hells, where 'he will experience both light which reveals all sorts of evil things everywhere which give rise to boundless dread, and silent darkness which hides everything and causes infinite fear'. (These descriptions occupy 4 pages of text.)

Shakyamuni Buddha lived as an example to all a renunciate life, perfectly celibate. Do you know of any Mahayana sutra where a buddha engages in sexual activity (outside of anuttarayogatantra texts)?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Clearly not. He has crossed the river, reached the farther shore. Who amongst us can say that?

Speaking of Christianized thinking - there is a famous Biblical episode where Jesus intervenes in the case of a woman who is to be stoned for adultery (which still happens in some places.) He utters that famous line: 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. The crowd move on, 'convicted by their own conscience'.

The passage ends like this: 'And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more'.

(John 8 - emphasis added.)

So this passage, which is often quoted in this connection, doesn't say 'there is no sin'.

Last edited by Wayfarer on Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sometimes spirituality is a liberation, and sometimes it's an alibi ~ David Brazier

Matylda wrote:I can see that zen is very kind of social event in America or Europe... practice is kept pretty much in open and people talk about it a lot. There are also exteremly many misconceptions concerning zen, like being a hinayana, or any other distorted opinion. Then anything which goes in this circles will cause a lot of waves of negative emotions, and many people will not fail but fall under the burden of negativity..

Moreover there are so many moralists getting angry at teachers, whether they are right or wrong does really not matter, that even those unrelated to particular teacher with their anger will fall too... don't you think so?

Well, I am Vajrayana practitioner who does not view Zen as belonging to the Hinayana. We view it a sublime Mahayana practice.

Matylda, there is a kernal of what you are saying that I really appreciate. Stated broadly, if we have faith in the teachings of our lineages that claim to be a rapid path to enlightenment, then we have faith that there are many teachers alive right now high on the Bodhisattva bhumis, or have realized Buddhahood. Yes, my school as well as yours teaches that these people--a subset of the very best masters -- may display uncontrived conduct. The last thing I want to see is for these wisdom beings to be put in a box, and regulated by some kind of professional licensing boards that require them to be fine upstanding citizens according to the standards of the culture in which they find themselves. That being said, centers cannot thrive today -- as opposed to even 15 years ago -- with teachers who grope students breasts or genitals, beat up their students, display drunkenness, or act weird or crazy. Enlightened or unenlightened, that kind of thing won't work here in the West anymore... they would need to act as solo teachers, non-teachers, or hermits.

Most of the humans in this world are not Buddhist, and of Buddhists many are Theravadin, and of the Mahayana Buddhists, most do not practice in depth. Of those Mahayana practitioners who practice and study in depth, many belong to schools who emphasize the value of controlled conduct and appearing acceptable to society. Thus, there is hardly anyone in this world who have a willingness to engage with teachers who act weirdly.

Therefore, "good teachers who act badly"-- as Khyentse Rinpoche calls them -- can expect to be rejected by Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. That is one of the benefits of either unfabricated conduct, or deliberate "crazy" or "immoral" behavior (a powerful practice for those already on the bhumis)... that the practitioner will be disrespected and even despised by everyone. To be persona non-grata is said to be a very important practice to catapult one towards Buddhahood. Few have the courage for that!

So, it entirely right that people on internet forums should denounce even the idea that such beings could exist in the world today, much less that any specific individual is at that level. There is no problem with that, and there is nothing to defend.

Yudron wrote:So, it entirely right that people on internet forums should denounce even the idea that such beings could exist in the world today, much less that any specific individual is at that level. There is no problem with that, and there is nothing to defend.

Yes. Yes, but... Sometimes a teacher may not match our image of a compassionate gentle Buddha. A true master, however, will not be grasping after pleasure or lust, especially at the expense of their students' welfare.

And for me at least, this is not about denouncing. It is about recognition that the great Mahayana and Chan/Zen/Son teachers taught enlightenment that is reflected in skillful compassionate functioning which is free of grasping, and which does no harm.

That there were (and are) some people whose conduct is not entirely free from grasping but who show insight and brilliance in some ways, is precisely what it is. Caveat emptor!

Matylda, No more pussy footing, lets face it it's hard to reason with you as others have tried to do, it's to no avail as you become even more obstreperous.All meetings between human beings, that between teacher and student is archetypal. It's form is ancient, its manifestation ever new. So special and trusting. So it is with Marpa and Milarepa, Shams el Din and Rumi etc etcAgain I repeat, so special so trusting!

Yudron wrote:So, it entirely right that people on internet forums should denounce even the idea that such beings could exist in the world today, much less that any specific individual is at that level. There is no problem with that, and there is nothing to defend.

A true master, however, will not be grasping after pleasure or lust, especially at the expense of their students' welfare.

Or rejecting.

If I was a teacher and had students (hah!) I would not know what would benefit my students' awakening, so I would just try to gentle and kind, and "follow the rules." But, although many--perhaps most--contemporary Buddhists do not believe it, I have faith that an enlightened being's conduct will effortlessly be in accordance with what will accelerate the student's awakening.

Say a teacher punches one of his students, for example. I can't say that that is "at the expense of the student's welfare." But an Arya Bodhisattva who can literally or figuratively "see" future lives knows whether that punch will help or hinder.

Few people will like this kind of talk, it understandably pushes buttons.

Matylda wrote:I can see that zen is very kind of social event in America or Europe... practice is kept pretty much in open and people talk about it a lot. There are also exteremly many misconceptions concerning zen, like being a hinayana, or any other distorted opinion. Then anything which goes in this circles will cause a lot of waves of negative emotions, and many people will not fail but fall under the burden of negativity..

Moreover there are so many moralists getting angry at teachers, whether they are right or wrong does really not matter, that even those unrelated to particular teacher with their anger will fall too... don't you think so?

Well, I am Vajrayana practitioner who does not view Zen as belonging to the Hinayana. We view it a sublime Mahayana practice.

Matylda, there is a kernal of what you are saying that I really appreciate. Stated broadly, if we have faith in the teachings of our lineages that claim to be a rapid path to enlightenment, then we have faith that there are many teachers alive right now high on the Bodhisattva bhumis, or have realized Buddhahood. Yes, my school as well as yours teaches that these people--a subset of the very best masters -- may display uncontrived conduct. The last thing I want to see is for these wisdom beings to be put in a box, and regulated by some kind of professional licensing boards that require them to be fine upstanding citizens according to the standards of the culture in which they find themselves. That being said, centers cannot thrive today -- as opposed to even 15 years ago -- with teachers who grope students breasts or genitals, beat up their students, display drunkenness, or act weird or crazy. Enlightened or unenlightened, that kind of thing won't work here in the West anymore... they would need to act as solo teachers, non-teachers, or hermits.

Most of the humans in this world are not Buddhist, and of Buddhists many are Theravadin, and of the Mahayana Buddhists, most do not practice in depth. Of those Mahayana practitioners who practice and study in depth, many belong to schools who emphasize the value of controlled conduct and appearing acceptable to society. Thus, there is hardly anyone in this world who have a willingness to engage with teachers who act weirdly.

Therefore, "good teachers who act badly"-- as Khyentse Rinpoche calls them -- can expect to be rejected by Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. That is one of the benefits of either unfabricated conduct, or deliberate "crazy" or "immoral" behavior (a powerful practice for those already on the bhumis)... that the practitioner will be disrespected and even despised by everyone. To be persona non-grata is said to be a very important practice to catapult one towards Buddhahood. Few have the courage for that!

So, it entirely right that people on internet forums should denounce even the idea that such beings could exist in the world today, much less that any specific individual is at that level. There is no problem with that, and there is nothing to defend.

yes it sounds very considerate and mature what you put here.. but please look at one thing. I proposed to jail those teachers, and added that if they are genuine enlightened beings, they will put up with the situation.. I do not say that with all craziness, or catching this or that part of one's body should be publicly appreciated. I also pointed out other thing... zen disciple takes extremely grave pledges, or samayas on oneself concerning the teacher... if broken will cut the karmic affinity to realize buddha nature. it is so clearly stated in texts and commentaries. and now all those injured, or harmed people do not know about it, or just forget about or they simply are ignorant of the fact...

I know 2 cases when zen masters were asked to apologize to their Western students.. I asked did you do it? both answered yes, and we broke into laughter, something absolutely unimaginable... and they did not do any rape, or any other misconduct.. they acted just as masters with sharp blade of wisdom... well there are cases which are difficult, but that extreme easiness with which people who are claiming to be zen buddhist engage in bashing and so on, is astonishing... and dangerous. not less dangarous then misbehavior of teachers... if teachers do not know what they are doing they will fall, but students as well, those who developed negative emotions, anger and so on.

Last edited by Matylda on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

greentara wrote:Matylda, No more pussy footing, lets face it it's hard to reason with you as others have tried to do, it's to no avail as you become even more obstreperous.All meetings between human beings, that between teacher and student is archetypal. It's form is ancient, its manifestation ever new. So special and trusting. So it is with Marpa and Milarepa, Shams el Din and Rumi etc etcAgain I repeat, so special so trusting!

I think that Marpa in the XXI century in our world would get life in prison... don't you think so? 20 years of abuse is a long time and prosecutors would be happy to catch such fish.. they would feed on Milarepa as well, a serial killer... many legal careers would build up on it, right?

So in this age we have no chance for Marpas or Milarepas or any really holy beings.. at least in the Western hemisphere..

Yudron wrote:So, it entirely right that people on internet forums should denounce even the idea that such beings could exist in the world today, much less that any specific individual is at that level. There is no problem with that, and there is nothing to defend.

A true master, however, will not be grasping after pleasure or lust, especially at the expense of their students' welfare.

Or rejecting.

If I was a teacher and had students (hah!) I would not know what would benefit my students' awakening, so I would just try to gentle and kind, and "follow the rules." But, although many--perhaps most--contemporary Buddhists do not believe it, I have faith that an enlightened being's conduct will effortlessly be in accordance with what will accelerate the student's awakening.

Say a teacher punches one of his students, for example. I can't say that that is "at the expense of the student's welfare." But an Arya Bodhisattva who can literally or figuratively "see" future lives knows whether that punch will help or hinder.

Few people will like this kind of talk, it understandably pushes buttons.

Having lived in the south pacific for a time, and being familiar with terms like 'taboo' and 'kapu', I can't help but find an amusing irony in the thread title and the thoughts you express here. One meaning of those words is something being designated as sacred and prohibited. For example, feathers from a particular bird might be taboo, but they are only forbidden to commoners. They are not forbidden to royalty. Indeed nothing is forbidden to royalty, even women.

Abuse has run rampant in American cults. Americans are sick of it. We all know what happens when you're in an organization where a leader calls the shots and you don't follow their whims, we can all relate to this situation.It's not about sex, it's about abuse of all persuasions that can happen in groups like these.

You would be surprised at all the people who have told me of their unfortunate dealings with Buddhist leaders who have used their position to try coerce people into outrageous things. Sometimes the teacher will try to drain their accounts by getting them to buy properties, sometimes they'll get the students to do seedy activities that they don't want to get their hands dirty with, sometimes they'll get the students to give up their job to work for nothing promoting their books, sometimes they'll say you're their consort, sometimes they'll say you're a tulku to get your ego to support their legitimacy, sometimes a teacher will ask you to pick up women or drugs for them, sometimes teachers will get you to take drugs and you'll wake up the next day with no memory of the night before.

All these scenarios are things people have told me in confidence, or that I have seen myself, about people that abused their position as a group leader. So when there's abuse in a religious group, let's take it seriously and warn people.